Kirk v. State

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARK KIRK, § § No. 17, 2020

Defendant Below, § Appellant, § §

v. § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Cr. ID No. 9612002650 (N)

Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: March 11, 2020 Decided: April 24, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion

to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment of the Superior

Court should be affirmed on the basis of its December 16, 2019 order, adopting the

commissioner’s well-reasoned order recommending that the appellant’s sixth

motion for postconviction relief be summarily dismissed. As the commissioner

2

correctly noted, the appellant’s claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction1 is

procedurally barred as having been previously adjudicated.2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Chief Justice

1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 2 Del. Super Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4); Kirk v. State, 2005 WL 3526325, at *2 (Del. Dec. 23, 2005) (rejecting Kirk’s claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to reduce Kirk’s convictions to lesser-included offenses in light of our holding in Williams v. State, 818 A.2d 906 (Del. 2003), and explicitly finding that the Superior Court did not violate any of Kirk’s constitutional rights in doing so).